The Inquirer is citing a “reliable source close to AMD” which tells that AMD's Athlon XP 2500+ will be 0.13 microns. It will be 1800MHz (133 x 13.5), run at 1.75v, and have an increased L2 cache (though they haven't solidified the size yet). It's also noted that when Thoroughbred comes out (the 0.13 micron Athlon XP) there will be a decrease in the MHz speed associated with it due to the extra performance a 0.13 micron chip will deliver. If you follow the current trend, Athlon XP 2000+ = 1667, and general increases of 66MHz per iteration, then you'd see 2100=1733, 2200=1800, 2300=1866, 2400=1933, 2500=2000. But the sources say XP 2500+ will be at 1800MHz (1.8GHz). So, that's interesting. The article mentions two die sizes, 128 mm² (at 0.18 microns I assume) and another square die of 80 mm² at 0.13 microns. If true, then AMD will again enjoy a substantial increase in units per wafer compared to Intel's 0.13 micron P4. T'bred (not T'bird) will be released Q2'02. So, it won't be-a too long dere, sonny.Rob Note: I believe that the .13 micron P4 has a die size of 146 mm², so that's a substantial difference from AMD's soon to be seen 80 mm².

USER COMMENTS 33 comment(s)

Hmmm(10:46am EST Thu Jan 17 2002)It doesnt sound like they are talking about the 2500 Rick, it sounds like they are talking about the 2200. “There is no reason for AMD to move straight to 2GHz”“The 2200 is slated to appear this quarter, and it will support the usual cluster of multimedia instructions including MMX, 3DNow and SEE.

Other details are that it will run at 1800MHz, using a 133 x 13.5 multiplier, have a 64-bit dual pumped bus, operate at 1.75 volts, and have 64K data two way as well as 64K instructions, also two way.

There will be 256K on die unified level two cache, which will be 16 way exclusive, and the die size will be 128 square millimetres, with the thing having 37.5 million transistors.”

After reading that I was under the impression that its the 2200 aka 1.8 Ghz - by Little0831

Little0831(10:55am EST Thu Jan 17 2002)

Very possible. Scratch that bit about PR rating equal MHz ratings. The rest should stand. The article does state that the 2500+ will see a MHz drop. That's the part that threw me.

Oh, and I wrote an a salty message to Mike Magee this morning about his mentioning SEE instructions (it should be SSE instructions). If he catches this one, he's gonna have a field day with me. hehehe :)

- by Rick C. Hodgin

LoL(11:00am EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Yeah, the article was kinda poorly writen. And you know what i find interesting, .13 athlon is 80mm and the P4 is 146mm, shesh! - by Little0831

2500+ less MHZ?(12:47pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Well if they decrease the mhz thats because it can still perform (out perform) as good as a northwood 2.5ghz.(remember its a rating)

maybe the have better L2 cache, less latency…who knows, only time will tell. - by SpyTech NYC

IPC facts(12:47pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Just posting the facts, sir!

It should also be noted that the top speeds are:

P4: 2.2 GHzAthlon: 1.67 GHzG4: 867 MHz

Also, I tend to doubt that any of these chips hit their top IPC very often. - by yo-yo

Umm ..(12:55pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Just a simple little question that I'm sure someone will take a spare a little time to answer.

What IS die-size, what does it do and how does it affect(enhance) processing?

Thanks alot.. - by K_y0s

K-y0s(1:04pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)

It's the physical size of the silicon that is the Athlon XP, or is the Pentium 4. The actual chip you plug onto the mainboard consists of packaging. At the heart of that package is a tiny piece of silicon about 1/2 the size of a postage stamp. It is what actually does all the processing.

- by Rick C. Hodgin

yo-yo(1:06pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Yeah, that's cool. It just seems like every time there is a mention of Mac a flame war begins.

Anyway… I guess it's not happening this time. - by Whew…

die size affects processing(1:07pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)

There are two ways. #1, when the die is smaller it generally follows that the traces (lines between different internal components of the chip) are a) narrower and b) shorter. This equates to a faster transfer time for the electrons from point A to point B. Of course, on silicon chips that are only a few milimeters across, the difference is negligable. However, with the smaller trace size there are physically less electrons which need to be moved, and that is not negligable.

#2 Since the traces are smaller, the chip can run with less voltage (not as much pressure is needed to push the lesser number of electrons through the chip). This reduces heat generation and allows the chip to be made faster.

- by Rick C. Hodgin

Hmm(1:27pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)AMD isn't expected to get to a .13 micron process until late 2002, so that means, the company won't get to the 2500 model until the beginning of 2002 is this is correct.

Will someone get their facts straight!

Oh, you got the “facts” from The Inquirer, that explains it. - by – -

AMD's 0.13 micron plans(1:36pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)

AMD will be fully converted over by the end of 2002. They're planning 0.13 micron introduction next quarter for Athlon XP Thoroughbred core.

Resistance of a conductor goes UP as processes shrink because the thickness of the conductor is decreased (already today, conductors on-chip are nearly 200% as tall as they are wide.) So, halve the dimensions (say), and resistance goes up 4x for any fixed length conductor. Granted, the shorter conductors scale in half too, but overall, the same “wire” still has 2x the resistance to current.

The smaller dimensions don't use less voltage because less “pressure” is needed to push around elecrons, my friend. The voltages are as HIGH as they are to speed electrons along (hence why overclockers often resort to overvoltage pumping). The upper limit to voltage is determined both by the breakdown of the insulator that's the gate-barrier for CMOS transistors AND ultimately to balance the E=½CV² energy loss (heat production) every time a CMOS gate switches from '1' to '0'. Volts squared heats up REAL fast with increased volts.

But supposing that people remember your conclusion – [...] that smaller architecures run at lower voltages and produce less heat [...] – is a fine one, and is essentially going to remain correct for the forseeable future.

- by GoatGuy

GoatGuy(6:34pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)

I bow to you in your wisdom. :)

- by Rick C. Hodgin

hmm…(8:22pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Is it possible that there will be an 1800MHz .18 chip released this quarter (AthlonXP 2200+) and there will also be an 1800MHz .13 chip released in Q2 (AthlonXP 2500+) ?- by ^Py^

ThreeThreeThree-FSB(10:04pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)I read recently on this website that AMD is releasing a processor in the near future with a 333MHz FSB. I read that it would be both the Thoroughbred and the Barton SOI, but it now appears the Thoroughbred uses the 266FSB. Does anyone know what chip will really use the 333MHz FSB first? - by FireStormJim

Still Socket A…!!??(10:08pm EST Thu Jan 17 2002)Still Socket A…!!?? Yep yep yep right Ricky..??..So yeah I look ahead to the future and upgrades..run the pins off the 1GHZ Duron that I can get for much less than a $100 and yeah hah…XP 2500+ for less then a $100 when the claw comes out…yep yep…!!! - by Riverdale

GoatGuy(9:26am EST Fri Jan 18 2002)

I am confused by your explanation. In general a circuit follows V=IR. If R goes up, but I goes down signifcantly (due to smaller traces, less electrons, less amps), and V goes down … then that tells me the value R going up is not as proportional as the amount I goes down. Correct?

If so, why wouldn't that equate to the fact that, even though the trace resistance is higher, there are physically less electrons to be moved through, and therefore the overall heat generation would be less (even in the face of increased resistence)?

I could compare this to the idea of driving a car through through a bridge that's 2″ to small for it on all sides. When the car reaches the bridge its moment will keep it going until the resistence of the friction stops it. So, by applying extra force (more power from the engine) you could drag the car through it kicking and screaming. But, the amount of energy you expended for that one car would be less than if you had to move 10 cars through a bridge that was only 1″ smaller.

Interesting example, eh? :)

- by Rick C. Hodgin

I think…(9:34am EST Fri Jan 18 2002)… that the handle “GoatGuy” is a collective name for a team of scientistist, electricians, physicist, microelectronics designers and jack-of-all-trades.

However I don't understand Rick's last post addressed to Goatguy. Well … are you talking about reducing V and increasing R at the same time?

Anyway I will be following this thread for a while. - by K-y0s

Ahem (… clears throat “significantly”…)(11:31am EST Fri Jan 18 2002)

Thanks, Janne, but I've also collectively been known as a jackASS-of-all-trades. Here on this fine site too, I might add! L.O.L.

Count Rickenstein, your point is well made. The ohmic relation between current, voltage and resistance is as you say: V = I•R. For any current, the voltage across the resistance is by the formula.

Energy/Heat is P = I•V, so algebra yields either P = I²R or P = V²/R. Now, here's the involved part of the argument:

CMOS gates either store a charge (“1″) or no charge (“0″) between the complimentary FET's. The 'charge' is the amount of electrons stored by the bulk capacitance of the aggregate gate region (Say that 3x fast!), which as dimensions diminsish, drops as a factor of D². But the other 'factor': gate capacitance, only goes down by D, since the gates get thinner (to work at lower voltage). So, per-gate overall power consumption related to (D² + D) or sort of between the two.

Therefore, the current drop per gate might scale quicker (better!) than dimension drop, so the increased resistance of the 'wires' requires fewer volts to get a given number of electrons to move between points A & B.

But… the number of DEVICES is going UP as the square of dimension as well. So, overall with each dimension drop, total 'amps per square centimeter' goes up. In fact, up linearly with dimension, overall.

So, in the big picture… If AMPS goes UP on a sheet of resistive material (metalization) whose resistance also goes UP (becuase of thinning), then power at any voltage is going to go up proportional to V/D². Hence the extreme need to find ways to cut voltage with each generation of CMOS.

A.A.A.S. Science mag had a great research article about this about 4 months ago (really outstanding), that predicts based on 17 major process factors that semiconductor logic has scalable 'life' down to 0.01 micron… and that chips will be running from 0.1 volt and 500 amps. Still, only 50 watts, but what a chip! Speed? Try 200 GHz out for size. Trannies? over 10,000,000,000 per chip. Now that gives me the shivers.

I don't make this stuff up, goats!

- by GoatGuy

GoatGuy(11:44am EST Fri Jan 18 2002)

Ok, I can accept that. However, if a given 0.18 micron design was taken and shrunk to 0.13 microns, without changing anything else. Wouldn't the required voltage go down, as well as the generated heat?

If what I gather from your argument is in fact true, then your position is that as processes shrink they inevitably stick more stuff in there to actually make it more complex than its older 0.18 micron cousins. Therefore, the new quantity of generated heat is not directly relational to the original because there is a new variable (number of transistors).

Correct? Or not?

- by Rick C. Hodgin

Correct.(3:15pm EST Fri Jan 18 2002)The 'original core' if simply shrunk, will speed up with dimension, and will consume less watts than the original at the cross-over MHz clock frequency. (i.e. at 2200 MHz for P4).

However, as the MHz's get up there… and the poor ol' busses & memory & I/O flag behind (as physics [damn it] requires), cache, more cache … and even more cache (and HyperThreading & …) are required to allow the chip to scale with its fatter GHz rating.

So chips fill the space. Certainly there's an incentive for the manufacturer's to shrink the die (better yields – 90% was just quoted as yields for the Athlon by El Sanders – which is outrageously good for a 143 mm² die), but improved yields & cleanroom techniques are all but guaranteeing that larger chips will be economically feasible in the future. So, the 'heat per sq. cm.' is going to level off at about 70-100 watts/cm² (being something of a limit without liquid-type cooling), die sizes will first shrink soon… then begin to get larger as the GHz requires more cache.

Did I mention Cache?

- by GoatGuy

GoatGuy(4:21pm EST Fri Jan 18 2002)

Ok. I'm up to speed with your position. But, as far as a simple process shrink goes, my original point was valid, right? I mean if they didn't do all the other stuff necessary to make the logic on the silicon newer and better (and more of it and more complex), then what I said would be true, right?

- by Rick C. Hodgin

Why make the chip so small…..(9:04am EST Sat Jan 19 2002)Instead of making them the size of 1/2 stamp, why not make a chip the size of 5 stamps, increase the voltage, add more transistors, larger L1 and L2 cache, and produce some 20Ghz. Use heatsinks on both sides of the processor, and watercooling. - by ice_chill

Sigh… because of errors, Chill…(1:05pm EST Sat Jan 19 2002)Essentially, whether from a single fragment of some substance that ruins a single transistor of the millions that make up a chip, or from a defect in the silicon wafer, or whatever…

There are a certain number of defects per square meter of substrate. Since current chipmaking techniques don't have a way to 'self repair' the errors, a chip has to be 100.00000000% perfect in order to work. The larger the chip, the more likely that one of those defects will ruin it.

PS, Sir Rick: you're essentially right by what I said above: “The 'original core' if simply shrunk, will consume less watts than the original at the cross-over MHz clock frequency. (i.e. at 2200 MHz for P4).”

The point is, that the new, smaller (and identical to original) circuit can now be clocked faster as well. Thus power goes right back up to 50-100 watts/sq.cm.

- by GoatGuy

Ok, so a large chip would be a disaster, but…(5:35pm EST Sat Jan 19 2002)isn't there a way to put 2 of today's chips on 1 processor?

And has anyone heard of the molecula chip developed by IBM, will they be in our desktop's in the future? - by ice_chill